As asomeone retired from the U.S. Army I believe every canidate should have served in the military and this does not include National Guard or Reserve service, unless the the Reserve service was done after the three or four years of regular service. I do not want someone sending our troops into harm's way who has not experienced it themselves. A good exaample is the former mayor of New York City, I thought he was someone I could vote for until I discovered that 1) he had a college deferment as an undergran; 2) another deferment as a law student; and 3 he was rated as 1-A;) but he got his boss to write him a letter saying how important his work was and was reclassified as 2-A.
- Sign in or Sign up to post comments
- send to friend
- report as spam
This goes way beyond the Constitution. We have civilians in charge for a reason. While miliary service may be admirable, it should certainly not be a requirement. I was not eligible for Miliary service during Vietnam due to asthma (1-Y). That does not mean I could not be a good President.
JHalstead:
You would still have civilians in charge of the military. What Quiggly is suggesting is that the candidate have prior military service. I agree with Quiggly. You don't know what it's like unless you've been there. It may help prevent some rash and profoundly stupid military excursion for no good reason.There are plenty of experts/advisors after the election...we don't need pre-qualifying military experience on the large scale...living everyday and maneuvering through life with so many situations facing persons gives a good idea to what is out there, big/little, we understand concepts, its all the same thing
All else being equal, I go for the Vet. I believe we would be in better shape today if the Bush Administration had a few Vets and less personal military service minimalists. But, the American People get to pick who they want. Requiring military service is far too limiting.
At some point we have to trust the voters.
Richard S. Poleet Jr.
While I agree with this in concept. I truly feel it would be a great asset. I do not feel it should be an absolute requirement.
Some of our greatest presidents had no military service.
Also, you exclude the Reserves and National Guard unless certain requirements are met.
How is there contribution to this great republic any less. Even if it was only one year in the bush or two.
So citizens with out military service are now second class citizens?
One must consider in some wars(undeclared or declared) there were more national guard and reserves combined than regular army. Thus having a greater impact then the regular army. Does that mean they should have a greater role? No! Military service is military service. Lets try to keep our personal preferences out of this. In order to create the more perfect Union our fore bearers envisioned. Together we stand divided we fall. Lets try to bring people together, not divide them further. In short it seems to me this should be an individuals choice. Not a parties requirement! Peace!!! Love!!! Long live the great Federal Republic of these United States and all those who reside with in her borders.
What percentage of Americans have actually served in the military to begin with? Maybe 20-25% and that may be a high estimate. Furthermore, what if somebody had something that precluded them from service such as an injury, or handicap. Perhaps they wanted to serve, but were not allowed to, does that make them any less qualified. A candidate should be measured purely on the inginuity of their ideas and the quality of their character, and that is only a good place to start. Cutting out a large portion of the population, beyond those who are already constitutionaly precluded does not make sense.
While I agree that military service is important; I do not believe that it necessary as a qualification to be president. As noted above very few people in the United States has actually served in the miltiary and this is particularly true since we have become an all-volunteer military. So such an requirement would be unnecessarily limit the qualified pool. Also as someone who has served both on Active Duty and the Reserves and as a someone married to someone in the military just because you served in the military doesn't mean that you are a good, visionary leader.
We are now and for the forseeable future at war! Someone with military experience would be an asset for this reason if no other.
Leadership is also a good qualifier. If there is nothing else of any importance I learned in the military it was this: A Leader is responsible for everything that those they lead do, or fail to do. If you don't want that kind of responsibility, then you have no business being a leader!
I believe Military service to be strongly desired for a Unity08 candidate, but not required. However, I do believe that some form of Public serivice should be required. Border Guard, Firefighter, Police Officer, Doctor, Nurse, EMT/Paramedic, CIA, FBI, Habitat for Humanity workers, etc.
On the subject of finding a Candidate with Military service, I would suggest ret. Gen. Wesley Clarke (D).
______________________________________________________________________
"The harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph," Thomas Paine
It cannot be a Constitutional Requirement, as it is not - however, parties can do whatever they want. Of course, this limits the number of candidates available.
If I don't run, and Bloomberg isn't, perhaps we shold consider General Wesley Clark - who seems to have waited too long to join the Democratic field.